Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DukeLukeivi t1_iwyzzqb wrote

Reply to comment by Flash635 in US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds, but tough reliability and land use questions lie ahead by nastratin

Because if both cars have similar pollution to produce then the tonnes of CO2 emissions saved over their operational life means literally nothing, reality isn't real, bothsidesarethesame, whyevenbother....

0

axecrazyorc t1_iwz10ov wrote

Don’t be obtuse. What they’re arguing is that the additional fossil fuels burned to produce the power to charge the electric vehicle dampens or negates the impact of the electric vehicle. Which is true. Saying burning fossile fuels to power electric cars is green is like saying burning coal in a power plant to heat your home in winter produces less pollution than just burning coal in your home. Switching to all EVs means next to nothing if you don’t also update the power generation infrastructure to match it.

If your takeaway from that is “why bother” or “both sides” then the problem is entirely you.

−2

DukeLukeivi t1_iwz29zc wrote

That's literally nothing to do with what they said. They said ev bad because they create pollution to make, they literally never mentioned useable lifetime emissions. Quit moving goalposts from an alt account.

This is also a fundamentally stupid thing for you to say, as green energy is rapidly growing in the international production portfolio, and will continue to do so -- we need to be making the transition to green grid and EV in tandem to start reaping benefits on both ends asap

>There's no point in building EVs if there's still carbon in the grid

>> There's no point in going green grid while there's all these carbon cars

>>>There's no point in anything, realityisntreal, whyevenbother.

1